Simonyan in Baku, Muradov in Yerevan: a new stage in relations?

Azerbaijan-Armenia peace talks

Armenia’s national security chief, Andranik Simonyan, took part in the 3rd International Security Forum in Baku. Meanwhile, Murad Muradov, deputy director of the Topchubashov Center in Baku, visited Armenia to attend a NATO Parliamentary Assembly seminar.

Steps towards peace talks between Baku and Yerevan began after the military operations in Karabakh in September 2023. At a trilateral meeting in Washington this August between Ilham Aliyev, Nikol Pashinyan and Donald Trump, the sides agreed on a draft peace treaty as well as a road (TRIPP) that would connect Nakhchivan with the rest of Azerbaijan.

Kremlin’s soft power plan for Azerbaijan: “Hundreds of millions of dollars wasted”

The Insider reports that secret Kremlin papers have raised serious alarm over the absence of organisations in Azerbaijan that defend Russia’s interests

The significance of Simonyan’s visit to Baku

Andranik Simonyan’s trip to Baku marked the first visit by such a senior Armenian official to Azerbaijan since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The forum he attended in Baku focused on cooperation between security services in preventing humanitarian and environmental crises.

According to Azerbaijani state media, the event brought together heads and representatives of security services from more than 90 countries. President Ilham Aliyev described the forum as a “platform for mutual trust and cooperation.”

The participation of Simonyan’s delegation was seen as an important step towards resolving the long-running conflict.

Commenting to the pro-government outlet Vestnik Kavkaza, political analyst Dmitry Solonnikov argued that the forum provided the Armenian side with a convenient pretext to engage in direct dialogue with Azerbaijan’s leadership.

“I believe the talks could cover issues such as securing the border between the two states, preparing border agreements, and moving towards signing a comprehensive peace treaty on inter-state cooperation. Security along the Zangezur corridor — which is Armenia’s main transit zone and will also serve as a key route via Azerbaijan — is also likely to be discussed, including its role in connecting Armenia with Nakhchivan,” he said.

“US backs both Armenia and Azerbaijan”: view from Yerevan

According to political analyst Areg Kochinyan, the bilateral agreements signed at the White House reduce the likelihood of an Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict

Deputy director of the Topchubashov Center visits Armenia

At the same time as Simonyan’s visit, Murad Muradov, deputy director of the Baku-based Topchubashov Center, travelled to Armenia to attend the 108th Rose-Roth seminar of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

Muradov arrived in Yerevan ahead of the seminar, which also brought delegations from Türkiye and Azerbaijan to the Armenian capital.

During a press briefing in Yerevan, Muradov reiterated Azerbaijan’s official stance, saying that “the only obstacle to a comprehensive peace treaty and full normalisation is Armenia’s constitution.” He argued that Armenia’s Declaration of Independence creates a potential legal basis for revisiting the peace agreement.

Expert opinions and conclusion

These visits are seen as signs of progress in the region’s normalisation process. They followed reciprocal trips earlier in September by the heads of the border demarcation commissions.

Analysts say such exchanges reflect a growing atmosphere of trust in Azerbaijan-Armenia relations, though some observers advise caution.

For example, politician Ilgar Mammadov told JAMnews that even after the Washington meeting, Armenia’s leadership has not fully shifted its stance on Karabakh and has not admitted to occupation.
“Diplomatic efforts aimed at peace are almost ignoring the formal cause of the conflict. While Yerevan has stepped back from some of its actions, it has retreated little from its long-held official position,” he said.

International experts, meanwhile, stress that Baku currently holds the stronger position and warn against drawing hasty conclusions about the success of the process.

Thus, while the visits are seen as signs of progress in the peace talks, key issues remain unresolved — including the return of displaced people to their homes and the settlement of problems created by past wars.

Opinion: “Can the initialled peace deal be seen as a new stage of the Karabakh conflict?”

What led the sides to this agreement, what changes opened the way to compromise, and how might differences in the leaders’ approaches affect the durability of peace?